Powers of Congress: Legislative Inquiry in Aid of

Legislation

Sec 21, Art 6. The Senate or the House of

Representatives or any of its respective committees may
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with
its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of
persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be

Power of Inquiry Inherent in Power to Legislate

⮚ [In] Arnault v. Nazareno, a case decided in 1950

under that Constitution, the Court already recognized
that the power of inquiry is inherent in the power to
legislate. [Senate v. Ermita, Apr 20, 2006]
⮚ The power of inquiry—with process to enfoce it—is
essential and appropriate auxillary to the legislative
function.
⮚ A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or
effectively in the absence of information respecting
the conditions which the legislation is intended to
effect or change; and where the legislative body
does not itself possess the requisite information —
which is not infrequently true — recourse must be
had to others who do possess it. [Arnault v.
Nazareno, Jul 18, 1950]
⮚ The Congress’ power if inquiry, being broad,
encompasses everything that concerns the
administration of existing laws as well as proposed or
possibly needed statutes.
⮚ It even extends "to government agencies created by
Congress and officers whose positions are within the
power of Congress to regulate or even
abolish."[Sabio vs. Gordon, 2006]

Power of Inquiry Inherent

The principal tool used by the legislature in exercising

[legislative power] is the power of inquiry which is inherent in
every legislative body.

Power of Inquiry – extensive

⮚ This power of legislative inquiry is so searching and
extensive in scope that the inquiry need not result in
any potential legislation, and may even end without
any predictable legislation. [McGrain vs Daugherty]
⮚ The phrase “inquiries in aid and legislation” refers to
inquiries to aid the enactment of laws, inquiries to
aid overseeing the implementation of laws, and even
inquiries to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste
in executive departments [Watkins vs United States]
Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of
Legislation
Sec 1. Power to Conduct Formal Inquiries or Investigations.
The Senate or any of its Committeesmay conduct formal in
quiries or investigations in aid of legislation in accordance
with these Rules. Such inquiries may refer to the
implementation or reexamination of any law or appropriation,
or in connection with any proposed legislation or the
formulation of, or in connection with future legislation, or will
aid in the review or formulation of a new legislative policy or
enactment. They may also extend to any and all matters
vested by the onstitution in Congress and/or in the Senate
alone.
Direct Conferral of Investigatory Power Upon the
Committees
⮚ Art 6, Sec 21 grants the power of inquiry not only to
the Senate and the House of Representatives, but
also to any of their respective committees. [Sabio vs
Gordon, Oct 17, 2006]
⮚ In Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of
Public Officers and Investigations, this Court
explained further that a legislative inquiry must
prove to be in aid of legislation and not for other
purposes, pronouncing that "Congress is neither a
law enforcement nor a trial agency."[Calida vs.
Trillanes, Sept. 3, 2019]
What the invitations should contain
⮚ indicate in its invitations to the public officials
concerned, or to any person for that matter, the
possible needed statute which prompted the need
for the inquiry.
⮚ Given such statement in its invitations, along with
the usual indication of the subject of inquiry and the
questions relative to and in furtherance
thereof, there would be less room for speculation on
 the part of the person invited on whether the inquiry
is in aid of legislation.[Senate vs Ermita]
Possible Statute + Subject of Inquiry + Questions
⮚ The ruling in Senate v. Ermita, requiring invitations
or subpoenas to contain the "possible needed statute
which prompted the need for the inquiry" along with
the "usual indication of the subject of inquiry and the
questions relative to and in furtherance thereof"
[Neri vs Senate, March 25, 2008]
⮚ Compliance with this requirement is imperative, both
under Sections 21 and 22[question hour] of Article 6
of the Constitution.
⮚ This must be so to ensure that the rights of both
persons appearing in or affected by such inquiry are
respected as mandated by said Section 2 and by
virtue of the express language of Section 22.[Neri vs
Senate, Mar 25, 2008]
Not Absolute
⮚ Despite the constitutional grant, the power of both
the House of Representatives and the Senate to
conduct investigations in aid of legislation is not
absolute. [Calida vs Trillanes]
⮚ Citing Watkins v. United States,27 this Court in
Bengzon, Jr. v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee28
emphasized that "[n]o inquiry is an end
itself[.]"[Calida vs Trillanes]
⮚ It explained that an investigation in aid of legislation
must comply with the rules of procedure of each
House of Congress, and must not violate the
individual rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
[Calida vs Trillanes]
Sub judice rule not invocable
⮚ On-going judicial proceedings do not preclude
congressional hearings in aid of legislation. [Romero
vs Estrada, Apr 2, 2009]
⮚ While Sabio and Standard Chartered Bank advert
only to pending criminal and administrative cases
before lower courts as not posing a bar to the
continuation of a legislative inquiry, there is no
rhyme or reason that these cases’ doctrinal
pronouncement and their rationale cannot be
extended to appealed cases and special civil actions
awaiting final disposition before this Court. [Romero
vs Estrada, Apr 2, 2009]
⮚ Corollary to the power to compel the attendance of
witnesses is the power to ensure that said witnesses
would be available to testify in the legislative
investigation. [Standard Chartered vs Senate, Dec 7,
2007]
Must Respect Individual Rights
⮚ Additionally, legislative inquiry must respect the
individual rights of the persons invited to or
affected by the legislative inquiry or
investigation. Hence, the power of legislative
inquiry must be carefully balanced with the
private rights of those affected. [Calida vs
Trillanes]
⮚ A person's right against self-incrimination and to
due process cannot be swept aside in favor of
the purported public need of a legislative
inquiry. [Calida vs Trillanes, Sept 3, 2019]
⮚ It must be stressed that persons invited to
appear before a legislative inquiry do so as
resource persons and not as accused in a
criminal proceeding. [Calida vs Trillanes, Sept 3,
2019]
⮚ Thus, they should be accorded respect and
courtesy since they were under no compulsion to
accept the invitation extended before them, yet
they did so anyway. Their accommodation of a
request should not in any way be repaid with
insinuations. [Calida vs Trillanes, Sept 3, 2019]
Senate Rules of Proceedure Governing Inquiries in Aid
of Legislation
Sec. 19. Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. A witness can
invoke his right against self-incrimination only when a
question which tends to elicit an answer that will incriminate
him is propounded to him. However, he may offer to answer
any question in an executive session.
No person can refuse to testify or be placed under oath or
affirmation or answer questions before an incriminatory
question is asked. His invocation of such right does not by
itself excuse him from his duty to give testimony.

Sub judice rule – explained

⮚ Sub judice is a Latin term which refers to matters

under or before a judge or court; or matters under
judicial consideration. [Re: Show Cause Order xxx v.
Sereno, Jul 17, 2018]
⮚ In essence, the sub judice rule restricts comments
and disclosures pertaining to pending judicial
proceedings. The restriction applies to litigants and
witnesses, the public in general, and most especially
to members of the Bar and the Bench. [Re: Show
Cause Order xxx v. Sereno, Jul 17, 2018]

Power to Compel Attendance

⮚ [It] is axiomatic that the power of legislative Contempt Power – Sui Generis
investigation includes the power to compel the
⮚ The exercise by Congress or by any of its
attendance of witnesses. [Standard Chartered vs
committees of the power to punish contempt is
Senate, Dec 7, 2007]
based on the principle of self-preservation.
 ⮚ As the branch of the government vested with the
legislative power, independently of the judicial
branch, it can assert its authority and punish
contumacious acts against it.
⮚ Such power is sui generis, as it attaches not to the
discharge of legislative functions per se, but to the
sovereign character of the legislature as one of the
three independent and coordinate branches of
government.[Standard Chartered vs Senate, Dec 7,
2007]
Senate Rules of Proceedure Governing Inquiries in Aid
of Legislation
Sec. 18. Contempt.* (a) The Chairman with the concurrence
of at least one (1) member of the Committee, may punish or
cite in contempt any witness before the Committee who
disobeys any order of the Committee or refuses to be sworn
or to testify or to answer a proper question by the Committee
or any of its members, or testifying, testifies falsely or
evasively, or who unduly refuses to appear or bring before
the Committee certain documents and/or object evidence
required by the Committee notwithstanding the issuance of
the appropriate subpoena therefor. Xxx
A contempt of the Committee shall be deemed a contempt of
the Senate. Such witness may be ordered by the Committee
to be detained in such place as it may designate under the
custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms until he/she agrees to
produce the required documents, or to be sworn or to testify,
or otherwise purge himself/herself of that contempt. Xxx
Senate’s Contempt Power – Duration
⮚ The Court finds that the period of imprisonment
under the inherent power of contempt by the Senate
during inquiries in aid of legislation should only last
until the termination of the legislative inquiry under
which the said power is invoked. [Balag vs. Senate,
Jul 3, 2018]
⮚ Accordingly, as long as there is a legitimate
legislative inquiry, then the inherent power of
contempt by the Senate may be properly exercised.
⮚ Conversely, once the said legislative inquiry
concludes, the exercise of the inherent power of
contempt ceases and there is no more genuine
necessity to penalize the detained witness. [Balag
vs. Senate, Jul 3, 2018]
Publication – required
⮚ The language of Section 21, Article VI of the
Constitution requiring that the inquiry be conducted
in accordance with the duly published rules of
procedure is categorical. [Neri vs Senate, Sept 4,
2008]
⮚ Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution is the sole
instance in the Constitution where there is a
categorical directive to duly publish a set of rules of
procedure. [Gutierrez vs The House of
Representatives Committee on Justice, Feb 11,
2015]
When to Publish Rules
It is incumbent upon the Senate to publish the rules for its
legislative inquiries -in each Congress or -otherwise make the
published rules clearly state that the same shall be effective
in subsequent Congresses or until they are amended or
repealed to sufficiently put public on notice. [Neri vs Senate,
Sept 4, 2008]
Publication -Due Process
⮚ The requisite of publication of the rules is intended to
satisfy the basic requirements of due process.
[Garcillano vs HR Committees, Dec 23, 2008]
⮚ Publication is indeed imperative, for it will be the
height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a
citizen for the transgression of a law or rule of which
he had no notice whatsoever, not even a
constructive one. [Garcillano vs HR Committees, Dec
23, 2008]
⮚ The publication of the Rules of Procedure in the
website of the Senate, or in pamphlet form available
at the Senate, is not sufficient under the Tañada v.
Tuvera ruling which requires publication either in the
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general
circulation. [Garcillano vs. HR]
Senate as a Continuing Body
Certainly, there is no debate that the Senate as an institution
is "continuing," as it is not dissolved as an entity with each
national election or change in the composition of its members.
[Garcillano vs. HR]
Day-to-day business
However, in the conduct of its day-to-day business the Senate
of each Congress acts separately and independently of the
Senate of the Congress before it. [Garcillano vs. HR]
What happens to pending matters?
[A]ll pending matters and proceedings, i.e., unpassed bills
and even legislative investigations, of the Senate of a
particular Congress are considered terminated upon the
expiration of that Congress and it is merely optional on the
Senate of the succeeding Congress to take up such unfinished
matters, not in the same status, but as if presented for the
first time. [Garcillano vs. HR]

Senate Legislative Inquiry Terminates on 2 Instances

[Balag vs Senate, July 2018]

1. Upon approval or disapproval of Committee Report

⮚ Evidently the Committee Report is the
culmination of the legislative inquiry. Its
approval or disapproval signifies the end of
such legislative inquiry and it is now up to
the Senate whether or not to act upon the
said Committee Report in the succeeding
order or business.
⮚ At that point, the power if contempt
simultaneously ceases and the detained
witnesses should be released.
⮚ As the legislative inquiry ends, the basis for
the detention of the recalcitrant witness
likewise ends.
2. The legislative inquiry of the Senate also terminates
upon the expiration of one (1) Congress.
⮚ Again, while the Senate is a continuing
institution, its proceedings are terminated
upon the expiration of that Congress at the
final adjournment of its last session.
⮚ Hence, as the legislative inquiry ends upon
that expiration, the imprisonment of the
detained witnesses likewise ends.

Subject to Judicial Review?

⮚ The right of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of

legislation is, in theory, no less susceptible to abuse
than executive or judicial power. [Senate vs Ermita]
⮚ It may thus be subjected to judicial review pursuant
to the Court’s certiorari powers under Section 1,
Article VIII of the Constitution. [Senate vs Ermita]

Exemption: Executive Privilege

⮚ Even where the inquiry is in aid of legislation, there

are still recognized exemptions to the power of
inquiry, which exemptions fall under the rubric of
"executive privilege." [Senate vs Ermita]
⮚ When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the
only way for department heads to exempt
themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege.
They are not exempt by the mere fact that they are
department heads. [Neri vs Senate, Senate vs
Ermita]